Does "The fire that burns against the cold" stop "Calculated Cruelty"?

[Yusnaan]

Hi, rules question regarding 2 tactics from NW and Roose.
Does Roose's tactics that require an expend of token replace the effect of the token or is it just a cost of the tactics card? Does "The fire that burns against the cold" stop "Calculated Cruelty"? Would appreciate a response from CMON Mike if possible! Thanks.

[hithero]

Roose card says expend a condition token to... NW says when a condition token is spent... Both are being done so Roose is stopped.

[Yusnaan]

I agree the conditions are met, but the NW card says cancel the effect of the token. Is Roose's tactic card truly the effect of the token or is it separate?

[AlxRaven]

My thought is that you are giving up the potential effect of the token to fuel the Tactics Card. Unless the card says something like “replace the effect with...” (I’m not where I can review mine) then it would NOT be stopped, because the effect is from the card and not the token.

[hithero]

The effect doesn't matter, one says spend a token the other if it is spent, which it is, what its spent on is irrelevant.

[AlxRaven]

I would say that where that effect comes from matters.

First, I want to say that I agree that the conditions are met to allow the Tactics Cards to be played on both sides. However, my thought is that although “The fire that burns...” could be played, since it states “...cancel the effect of that token.”, there is nothing for it to cancel because there is no effect coming from the token. It is only a cost, to fuel “Calculated Cruelty”.

[Yusnaan]

The effect doesn't matter, one says spend a token the other if it is spent, which it is, what its spent on is irrelevant.

Actually it is relevant, because the NW tactics card actually says "cancel the effect of that token." It doesn't say just cancel all effects, just the effect of the token. Part of the reason I asked for a CMON response was to avoid getting aggressive and rude comments, so please go post somewhere else hithero.

[Yusnaan]

Additionally, p24 of the rulebook states:
"Note that sometimes an Ability or effect will expend a token to grant a different effect than listed above. See that specific Ability/effect for more details."

Nowhere does it say it replaces the effect, like the zone claiming replacements do.

[hithero]

Actually it is relevant, because the NW tactics card actually says "cancel the effect of that token." It doesn't say just cancel all effects, just the effect of the token. Part of the reason I asked for a CMON response was to avoid getting aggressive and rude comments, so please go post somewhere else hithero.

Sorry you took it that way, was not my intent to be aggressive or rude.

[RedmanGamer]

I agree with Yusnaan, but it would still be great to get an official ruling.

[Yusnaan]

Hopefully this gets addressed soon. The fact we haven't had a CMON comment in it might mean they haven't decided how it should work yet...

[RedmanGamer]

When you use rules as written, the card effect is not the token effect. So I will rule it that way.
But until official clarification arrives, we can’t for certain decide what their intent is.
It’s exactly the same with “lannister intimidation” from Tywin.

[Fronx]

Clarified in current FAQ v1.2:

CALCULATED CRUELTY (Roose Bolton, Lord of the Dreadfort)
Q:
For this, and similar cards, if something would cancel the token’s
effect does it in turn prevent the effect of the Tactics Card?
A:
No. Expending the token is only part of resolving of the Ta tics Card ’s
effect. The token itself has no effect that is being applied

[RedmanGamer]

Glad they clarified it!